United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint (d/e 11) filed by Defendants The
Salvation Army, John Van Zee, Elmer Gamble, and Deanna Rife.
The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The
individual Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. The
claims remain pending against The Salvation Army. In
addition, the Court RECONSIDERS Plaintiffs request for the
appointment of counsel. The Court will attempt to recruit
counsel to represent Plaintiff.
August 2017, Plaintiff Allen Bridgeford Jr., proceeding pro
se, filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants discharged him
from his employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The Court found Plaintiff
indigent and granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Complaint and attachments contain the following
allegations and information.
terminated Plaintiff from his employment as a truck driver on
August 9, 2016. Van Zee was Plaintiffs immediate supervisor.
Plaintiff identifies Gamble as an administrator and Rife as a
August 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination
against The Salvation Army with the Illinois Department of
Human Rights (Department) under Charge No. 2017SA0247 (the
Charge). The Charge was cross-filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Charge No. 21BA61924.
Plaintiff alleged he was discriminated against on the basis
of his age (56) and his race (Black).
16, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of Dismissal for
Lack of Substantial Evidence. The Notice advised Plaintiff
that, if he disagreed with the decision, he could seek review
before the Illinois Human Rights Commission (Commission) or
commence a civil action in the appropriate state circuit
court within 90 days after receipt of the Notice.
August 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Request for Review of the
Notice of Dismissal. On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit alleging that he was discharged in violation of Title
VII and the ADEA.
October 2017, Defendants filed their Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff has not filed a response.
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the
complaint. Christensen v. Cnty. of Boone, Ill., 483
F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). To state a claim for relief, a
plaintiff need only provide a short and plain statement of
the claim showing she is entitled to relief and giving the
defendants fair notice of the claims. Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true
and construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor.
Id. However, the complaint must set forth facts that
plausibly demonstrate a claim for relief. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). A plausible
claim is one that alleges factual content from which the
Court can reasonably infer that the defendants are liable for
the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009).
assert that the Complaint must be dismissed because (1)
Plaintiffs claims are barred by 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(3)
because Plaintiff chose to pursue his claims in the
Commission when he filed a request for review; (2) Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the EEOC
and, therefore, the lawsuit is premature; and (3) the
individual Defendants cannot be ...